Friday, March 13, 2015

Journals Considered Even More Harmful

The current empirical literature on the effects of journal
rank provides evidence supporting the following four conclusions:
1) Journal rank is a weak to moderate predictor of scientific impact;
2) Journal rank is a moderate to strong predictor of both intentional
and unintentional scientific unreliability;
3) Journal rank is expensive, delays science and frustrates researchers;
and, 4) Journal rank as established by [Impact Factor] violates even
the most basic scientific standards, but predicts subjective judgments
of journal quality.

I'm particularly concerned about the medical journals that participate
in advertising networks. Imagine that someone is researching clinical
trials for a deadly disease. A smart insurance company could target such
users with ads that mark them for higher premiums. A pharmaceutical
company could use advertising targeting researchers at competing
companies to find clues about their research directions. Most journal
users (and probably most journal publishers) don't realize how easily
online ads can be used to gain intelligence as well as to sell products.

I should have remembered that, less than 3 weeks ago, Brian Merchant at Motherboard posted Looking Up Symptoms Online? These Companies Are Tracking You, pointing out that health sites such as WebMD and, even less forgivably, the Centers for Disease Control, are rife with trackers selling their visitors' information to data brokers:

The CDC example is notable because it’s a government site, one we assume
should be free of the profit motive, and entirely safe for use. “It’s
basically negligence,”

If you want to look up health information online, you need to use Tor.